Editor Research Audit And Service Assessments
Purpose and Overview
The purpose of this Editor Research Audit & Service Assessments guideline is to describe how Global Journals® evaluates and improves editorial quality, research oversight, and service to authors, reviewers, and the wider research community. These assessments promote continuous improvement, transparency, and accountability in our editorial processes.
What Are Research, Audit & Service Assessments
Research and Audit Evaluations
- Systematic reviews of editorial-work processes, peer review, workflow efficiencies, research integrity and compliance.
Service Assessments
- Feedback and evaluation of how editors, editorial board members, and associated services perform their roles in terms of timeliness, professionalism, fairness, ethical conduct, and support to stakeholders.
Why They Matter
Ensure that manuscripts are reviewed and published with scientific validity, clarity, and reliability.
Maintain trust and credibility among authors, reviewers, and readers.
Comply with standards from COPE, OARS, and other industry best practices.
Identify bottlenecks in editorial workflows (e.g. delays, reviewer response times) and make improvements.
Uphold ethical standards, including handling of misconduct, conflicts of interest, and transparency.
Key Components of Assessments
Steps Suggested by OARS for Editors During Review
Risk vs. Benefit Assessment
- Consider whether the benefits of the study outweigh potential damages.
Scientific Evaluation
- Assess whether the study is scientifically valid and usable.
- Determine if the sample size is sufficient.
- Verify clarity of results and outcomes.
- Judge whether the publication will serve its intended purpose.
- Ensure probable complications are addressed.
- Confirm impartiality has been maintained.
- Judge whether the publication will serve its intended purpose.
Ethical Safeguards
Editors should verify whether appropriate measures were taken to
- Reduce adverse effects and protect privacy.
- Minimise risk of physical or psychological harm.
- Maintain sovereignty (e.g., reusing information sheets and consent forms for certain audits and evaluations can demonstrate compliance with ethical standards, even without formal committee approval).
- Ascertain and document the methods researchers used to overcome the above challenges.
Clarification of Local Rules
Author-First Experience
- Where there is a risk of misinterpreting local laws or ethical norms, editors should obtain and provide to authors a clarification letter from the research ethics committee.
Through these sustained efforts, we’ve compressed the time from insight to impact cultivating an ecosystem where knowledge rapidly transforms into real-world progress.
Implementation
OARS anticipates that the above system will be strictly adhered to by editors during manuscript review, and similarly respected by research ethics committees when approving applications.
- A written document must be maintained as part of the journal’s records for all deviations or special considerations granted.
- This process acts not only as a review protocol but also as a practical guideline for both editors and authors.
- Ultimately, the system is designed to be user-friendly, ensuring clarity, consistency, and fairness in research audit and service assessment practices.
